Premeditation

[lin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
This case is shaping up to be very much in tune with the convictions of Darlie Routier and Cynthia Sommer. A conviction based not on clear and unyielding evidence but rather on the emotions of jurors who don't like the defendant's behavior (a Salem, 1692 style conviction).

I respectfully disagree with you. When Susan Smith didn't have eye contact with the media when she was (pleading to have her children returned to her) I knew something was very wrong. When a person party's, gets tat's, shops, and most of all never reports her child missing until her Mother does it and then takes LE to places "where she works, invisananny's apartment" and just plain bold faced lies about everything. Hummmm? What is a reasonable person to think?

Behavioral evidence is often admissible and often a part of the jury's guilty verdict; rightfully so, imo.

 

[JBean]

I think Huck was originally charged with Felony Murder and ultimately convicted of same.
or does anyone know if he was charged with the same charges as KC but convicted of Felony Murder?
TIA

 

[JBean]

Just so we're all understanding the legal requirements, the mechanism of death is not necessary to convict.

I think the only reason we are discussing mechanism of death is because the OP and subsequent posts submit the mechanism of death ( asphyxiation by tape) as the proof of premeditation.
Premeditation is the topic and we are responding to the OP.

 

[lin]

Jurors don't have to have evidence of binding or not binding. They DO have evidence that Caylee's nose and mouth were taped closed.

Not only does the previously cited FL court decision speak to that, anyone who has had to physically restrain an out-of-control toddler, and/or who knows about industrial strength duct tape would see the question as unimportant. A two-year-old, however squirmy, simply has no chance against an adult who outweighs her by 70 pounds.

In addition,. the question of whether KC accidently killed, or let die, Caylee will not come up. KC is sticking with the SODDI defense. Her choice. The jury is not allowed to speculate that there MIGHT have been an accident, in the face of KC's silence.

If KC changed her mind, IMVHO, she's have to take the stand and explain. She would subsequently be shredded like cabbage on cross-X.

Of your many brilliant posts, this one stands out as a shining example.

Unless and until the defense backs off the SODDI defense, the jury will not be allowed to consider an accidental death scenario, period. Without KC's testimony as to an accident or an accomplice or someone to whom she entrusted her child or by whom her child was kidnapped, well, it is what it is and it ain't good for KC.

"Shredded like cabbage" is such an apt metaphor. Don't be surprised when I'm caught on tape trying to cash it -- er -- I mean if I borrow it.

 

[lin]

Behavior around the time of the crime IS circumstantial evidence.
In KC's case her behavior is SO totally inappropriate to that of a mother whose child has been 'kidnapped', that it should carry a lot of weight.

And I'm confident it will carry a lot of weight not only toward proving her guilt but also the premeditation involved. This death was not a shock to KC as an accident would have been.

 

[Wudge]

The prosecutor can in opening and closing statements.

ETA,
And when the jurors see the horrific photos of Caylee's little skull, with the tape across her face, KC will go down!

Incorrect (and incorrect in an absolutely huge way).

Opening statements are not evidence, nor is evidence presented during an opening statement. Nor are closing arguments evidence.

(And if you are still puzzled, trial judges so instruct juries.)

 

[lin]

I don't think an attorney can put a theory(hypothesis) already determined by a higher court not to be reasonable, in front of the court without basis or foundation.

Putting duct tape over a dead person's mouth from panic has already been deemed by the higher courts not to be a reasonable hypothesis.

jmo

You're correct on both counts. Perhaps to get us on a better track and out of the circle of what is the evidence to support premeditation which has been repeated in this thread and others, maybe another way to look at it is:

What is the evidence to support lack of premeditation?

I realize the burden of proof is on the prosecution but for the purposes of discussion we have a certain set of facts here:

1. Deceased Caylee w/duct tape.

2. Behavioral evidence.

3. Caylee in KC's trunk.

What other reasonable explanation could be put forth to explain these facts that would negate premeditation?

 

[Imbackon]

Incorrect (and incorrect in an absolutely huge way).

Opening statements are not evidence, nor is evidence presented during an opening statement. Nor are closing arguments evidence.

(And if you are still puzzled, trial judges so instruct juries.)

The jurors WILL HEAR THIS NONE THE LESS.
That horse will be out of the gate, and it ain't going back.

I think it has already been established, that IF SHE DIED from asphyxiation by duct tape, that in itself can be shown to be premeditation because you have at least a minute or two to change your mind and remove the tape.

The only question posed here is whether it can be proved that duct tape was in fact applied prior to death, thus causing the death or was it applied after death. Correct?

Showing the skull and duct tape in relation to each other, not having any other evidence due to caylee being a skeleton
and the prior and subsequent behavior of her mother, will be enough for a jury to come to the conclusion that Caylee was murdered by her mother using duct tape.
Like it or not, KC baby is going down.

 

[Imbackon]

I am sooooo confident KC will be convicted, that I will give $100 to the innocence project if she is not convicted.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

We also need to consider the computer searches. I'm sure the prosecution has compared the timing of the searches as compared to George and Cindy's work schedules, cell pings from Casey's phone, etc. In the Mark Jensen trial, the prosecution nailed him for his computer searches based on computer use immediately before and after the searches. Considering the presence of chloroform searches and the unusual presence of chloroform in the trunk along with the other topics searched, the computer forensics will be a large number of nails in Casey's coffin.

The defense will try and blame them on others. They've already done so, IIRC!

 

[Wudge]

The jurors WILL HEAR THIS NONE THE LESS.
That horse will be out of the gate, and it ain't going back.

I think it has already been established, that IF SHE DIED from asphyxiation by duct tape, that in itself can be shown to be premeditation because you have at least a minute or two to change your mind and remove the tape.

The only question posed here is whether it can be proved that duct tape was in fact applied prior to death, thus causing the death or was it applied after death. Correct?

Showing the skull and duct tape in relation to each other, not having any other evidence due to caylee being a skeleton
and the prior and subsequent behavior of her mother, will be enough for a jury to come to the conclusion that Caylee was murdered by her mother using duct tape.
Like it or not, KC baby is going down.

True. Jurors often do not know what they are doing. Some will hear claims in opening statements and think it constitutes evidence. Some will listen to a closing argument and think it constitutes evidence. This is part of the reason for why I have long advocated the need for professional jurors, particulalry in death penalty trials and/or high-profile cases. The number of wrongful convictions is absurd.

As regards: "If she died from asphyiation", that is not evidence. 'If' represents a question. And again, questions are not evidence. You are reasoning from a non-evidence basis.

HTH

 

[RR0004]

titcr

Okay...what the heck is this?

 

[lin]

The jurors WILL HEAR THIS NONE THE LESS.
That horse will be out of the gate, and it ain't going back.

I think it has already been established, that IF SHE DIED from asphyxiation by duct tape, that in itself can be shown to be premeditation because you have at least a minute or two to change your mind and remove the tape.

The only question posed here is whether it can be proved that duct tape was in fact applied prior to death, thus causing the death or was it applied after death. Correct?

Showing the skull and duct tape in relation to each other, not having any other evidence due to caylee being a skeleton
and the prior and subsequent behavior of her mother, will be enough for a jury to come to the conclusion that Caylee was murdered by her mother using duct tape.
Like it or not, KC baby is going down.

Well said. I mean, well written.

The mechanism of death need not be proven but the jury is free to infer anything they like from the evidence presented. Many here have drawn the inference that the duct tape was likely the mechanism of death.

The duct tape was applied prior to decomposition, per Dr. G. To my mind, and I'm no nurse of decomposition or anything, , but that means prior to death or within moments of death. For a child to die of any cause other than murder and for her mother to immediately think to put industrial strength duct tape for whatever (unreasonable) reason over that child's face and to make the decision to put the industrial strength duct tape on that child's face in three separate strips seems to me to be more than a stretch -- it's quite a leap to think the cause of death was anything but deliberate, premeditated murder. But that's jmo.

 

[RR0004]

True. Jurors often do not know what they are doing. Some will hear claims in opening statements and think it constitutes evidence. Some will listen to a closing argument and think it constitutes evidence. This is part of the reason for why I have long advocated the need for professional jurors, particulalry in death penalty trials and/or high-profile cases. The number of wrongful convictions is absurd.

As regards: "If she died from asphyiation", that is not evidence. 'If' represents a question. And again, questions are not evidence. You are reasoning from a non-evidence basis.

HTH

Ok, Wudge...seeing as I haven't seen the question answered...I'll assume that you believe Casey is guilty...so how would you present the "evidence" to a jury to make sure they understand?

 

[lin]

We also need to consider the computer searches. I'm sure the prosecution has compared the timing of the searches as compared to George and Cindy's work schedules, cell pings from Casey's phone, etc. In the Mark Jensen trial, the prosecution nailed him for his computer searches based on computer use immediately before and after the searches. Considering the presence of chloroform searches and the unusual presence of chloroform in the trunk along with the other topics searched, the computer forensics will be a large number of nails in Casey's coffin.

The defense will try and blame them on others. They've already done so, IIRC!

Exactly. There is other evidence to suggest and together (imo) prove premeditation. A finding of premeditation doesn't hinge solely on the duct tape. Although, imo, it would also be very reasonable to find premeditation solely on the duct tape.

 

[RR0004]

True. Jurors often do not know what they are doing. Some will hear claims in opening statements and think it constitutes evidence. Some will listen to a closing argument and think it constitutes evidence. This is part of the reason for why I have long advocated the need for professional jurors, particulalry in death penalty trials and/or high-profile cases. The number of wrongful convictions is absurd.

As regards: "If she died from asphyiation", that is not evidence. 'If' represents a question. And again, questions are not evidence. You are reasoning from a non-evidence basis.

HTH

No...I doubt the SA will make that claim...I think they may submit the tape over her mouth and nose for consideration...but as the ME has stated they cannot determine a cause of death...the SA will not say that she died from asphyxiation as a fact.

 

[Imbackon]

True. Jurors often do not know what they are doing. Some will hear claims in opening statements and think it constitutes evidence. Some will listen to a closing argument and think it constitutes evidence. This is part of the reason for why I have long advocated the need for professional jurors, particulalry in death penalty trials and/or high-profile cases. The number of wrongful convictions is absurd.

As regards: "If she died from asphyiation", that is not evidence. 'If' represents a question. And again, questions are not evidence. You are reasoning from a non-evidence basis.

HTH

The IF question was in reference to the premedition part, not a question as to whether or not she died from asphyxiation. Semantics.

If I ever kill someone, I hope you are on the jury. But this is not going to happen in my lifetime, nor yours.

 

[lin]

I think the only reason we are discussing mechanism of death is because the OP and subsequent posts submit the mechanism of death ( asphyxiation by tape) as the proof of premeditation.
Premeditation is the topic and we are responding to the OP.

Thanks; just didn't want anyone confused on what is required. As I wrote just a few minutes ago, many here have drawn the inference and jurors may also, particularly when presented with the rest of the (imo) very, very compelling evidence involved in this case. While the jury doesn't need to make a finding regarding the mechanism of death, along with the over evidence that supports KC's guilt, they may very well consider the duct tape as that mechanism and proof of premeditation.

It will be very interesting to hear Dr. G.'s testimony at trial clarifying her findings regarding this facet of the case. Although I don't find "prior to decomposition" to be as precise as I would like, it's not totally ambiguous either, imo. I suspect some of the fence sitters will jump right down after she testifies. JMO

 

[Wudge]

Ok, Wudge...seeing as I haven't seen the question answered...I'll assume that you believe Casey is guilty...so how would you present the "evidence" to a jury to make sure they understand?

What question?

 

[cyberborg]

Well said. I mean, well written.

The mechanism of death need not be proven but the jury is free to infer anything they like from the evidence presented. Many here have drawn the inference that the duct tape was likely the mechanism of death.

The duct tape was applied prior to decomposition, per Dr. G. To my mind, and I'm no nurse of decomposition or anything, , but that means prior to death or within moments of death. For a child to die of any cause other than murder and for her mother to immediately think to put industrial strength duct tape for whatever (unreasonable) reason over that child's face and to make the decision to put the industrial strength duct tape on that child's face in three separate strips seems to me to be more than a stretch -- it's quite a leap to think the cause of death was anything but deliberate, premeditated murder. But that's jmo.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

BBM